At 02:04 AM 5/15/2008, Talpey, Thomas wrote: >At 07:54 PM 5/14/2008, Roland Dreier wrote: >>Second question -- IB BMME and iWARP talk about a key portion (least >>significant byte) of STag/L_Key/R_Key as being under consumer control. >>Do we want to expose that as part of this API? Basically it means we >>need to add a way for the consumer to pass in a new L_Key/STag as part >>of a lot of calls. > >I think the Key portion is a quite useful way for the upper layer to >salt the actual R_Keys as a protection mechanism, and having it would >simplify a bunch of defensive code in the NFS/RDMA client. Currently, >because the keys are provider-chosen and potentially recycled, there >is a latent risk. > >But, I only want it if ALL future providers support it in some way. If a >subset does not, it's not worth coding around the differences.
I forgot to mention that the provider portion of the R_Key is reduced to 24 bits as a result of exposing/requiring the key. This may cause an issue at large scale, if the R_Keys have global scope. If they are limited to use on specific connections as in iWARP, then this is less of an issue. Tom. _______________________________________________ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
